Despite what GWB said, our invasion of Iraq was not a defense against aggression. There was zero evidence provided that implied that Iraq planned agressions against the USA. The debate centered around capacity/ability for agression via WMD and not intent. The case was never made that Iraq was currently an imminent danger to the USA. Instead, GWB repreatly stated that we could not wait for Iraq to become imminent danger, that 9-11 changed everything., ... QED. GWB's case failed to persuade France, Germany, Russia, and China. Thus, there was no getting this Iraq invasion passed by the UNSC. Lacking UNSC approval does not mean that the USA could not act in its self defense. It just places the burden on the USA to prove after the fact that the danger was imminent and that the war was just. The USA has failed to do this yet (and is unlikely that they ever will). This moves our pre-emptive war to a preventive war, which is clearly a violation of the UN Charter. Note that Germany invaded Poland as an unjust pre-emptive war. The US realized the danger of allowing one country to determine for itself which other country was and was not posing an imminent threat requiring a pre-emptive defense response. The US was right to push for pre-emptive war clauses in the UN Charter. Your "help advance the cause of world order" argument implies that the US could subjectively determine what the world order should be and those countries that aren't up to snuff. Can't you see how dangerous this line of reasoning is? You have to at least admit that if the PRC took back Taiwan based on the "world order" argument (or the prevemtive or pre-emptive defense argument) that the US might regret the precendence that they have recently set.
Fantastic point. I don't care if our leaders are Democrats, Republicans or Independents -- THEY ARE OUR SERVENTS. We put them there to act on our behalf, and should demand that they do so. These guys represent you and me on a world stage, and we have to hold them to the highest standards. Allowing them to coast because of their party affiliation illustrates a dangerous "us versus them" mentality. Too often, Americans support candidates instead of ideologies.
So did they have the right to revolt? Declaration of Independence was only contingent on their acknowldgement of it? France seemed to treat us as a soveriegn. Anyways, the Jesus! Thread; where we were actually having a good discussion concerning Papal Infallability. Again to quote Wiegel, a noted just war scholar; Just Cause. In the classic just war tradition, “just cause” was understood as defense against aggression, the recovery of something wrongfully taken, or the punishment of evil. As the tradition has developed since World War II, the latter two notions have been largely displaced, and “defense against aggression” has become the primary, even sole, meaning of “just cause.” This theological evolution has parallels in international law: the “defense against aggression” concept of just cause shapes Articles 2 and 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. In light of twenty–first–century international security realities, it is imperative to reopen this discussion and to develop the concept of just cause. As recently as the Korean War (and, some would argue, the Vietnam War), “defense against aggression” could reasonably be taken to mean a defensive military response to a cross–border military aggression already underway. New weapons capabilities and outlaw or “rogue” states require a development of the concept of “defense against aggression.” To take an obvious current example: it makes little moral sense to suggest that the United States must wait until a North Korea or Iraq or Iran actually launches a ballistic missile tipped with a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon of mass destruction before we can legitimately do something about it. Can we not say that, in the hands of certain kinds of states, the mere possession of weapons of mass destruction constitutes an aggression–or, at the very least, an aggression waiting to happen? This “regime factor” is crucial in the moral analysis, for weapons of mass destruction are clearly not aggressions waiting to happen when they are possessed by stable, law–abiding states. No Frenchman goes to bed nervous about Great Britain’s nuclear weapons, and no sane Mexican or Canadian worries about a preemptive nuclear attack from the United States. Every sane Israeli, Turk, or Bahraini, on the other hand, is deeply concerned about the possibility of an Iraq or Iran with nuclear weapons and medium–range ballistic missiles. If the “regime factor” is crucial in the moral analysis, then preemptive military action to deny the rogue state that kind of destructive capacity would not, in my judgment, contravene the “defense against aggression” concept of just cause. Indeed, it would do precisely the opposite, by giving the concept of “defense against aggression” real traction in the world we must live in, and transform. Some will argue that this violates the principle of sovereignty and risks a global descent into chaos. To that, I would reply that the post–Westphalian notions of state equality and sovereign immunity assume at least a minimum of acquiescence to minimal international norms of order. Today’s rogue states cannot, on the basis of their behavior, be granted that assumption. Therefore, they have forfeited that immunity. The “regime factor” is determinative, in these extreme instances. To deny rogue states the capacity to create lethal disorder, precisely because their possession of weapons of mass destruction threatens the minimum conditions of order in international public life, strengthens the cause of world order; it does not undermine it. Surely the lessons of the 1930s are pertinent here. On the matter of just cause, the tradition also needs development in terms of its concept of the relevant actors in world politics. Since September 11, some analysts have objected to describing our response to the international terrorist networks as “war” because, they argue, al–Qaeda and similar networks are not states, and only states can, or should, wage “war,” properly understood. There is an important point at stake here, but the critics misapply it. Limiting the legitimate use of armed force to those international actors who are recognized in international law and custom as exercising “sovereignty” has been one of the principle accomplishments of just war thinking as it has shaped world political culture and law; over a period of centuries, the classic distinction between bellum and duellum has been established in international law. At the same time, however, it does not fudge or blur this crucial distinction to recognize that al–Qaeda and similar networks function like states, even if they lack certain of the attributes and trappings of sovereignty traditionally understood. Indeed, terrorist organizations provide a less ambiguous example of a legitimate military target, because, unlike conventional states (which are always admixtures of good and evil, against whom military action sometimes threatens the good as well as the evil), the “parasite states” that are international terrorist organizations are unmitigated evils whose only purpose is wickedness–the slaughter of innocents for ignoble political ends. Thus the exigencies of the current situation require us to think outside the Westphalian box, so to speak, but to do so in such a way as to avoid dismantling de facto the distinction between bellum and duellum. And since you seem want to cling to notions involved in the UN charter, what would you say about its definition and statement that the Family is the basic unit of Society, and that its livelihood should not be changed?
He might have been refering to the Historical Jesus? threads. He might have expected since that you being a historian you would be all over those threads.
That's not the point being argued in this discussion though, I'm just countering MacB's assertion that there is no preemptive strikes in Just War Theory.
Really, all I can say is I disagree. Just like I disagree'd with you in the papal infallability thread, just like I disagreed with you when you tried to say the Bible was advocating slavery. That's really all that can be said, we just disagree. I think the regime factor has to be taken into effect, and furthermore I think the US was wrong to Nuke Japan, but once again, we'll just have to disagree.
I'd put a wrinkle in that -- There is a difference between 'fault' and 'responsibility.' If a handful of people under my command at work -- direct reports or not -- go Abner Louima on someone in the copy room and decide to document the experience -- hell yes I am responsible, even if they are 40 levels underneath me. I am not at personal fault, but responsible nonetheless. So dude, Bush is totally responsible. Just like Kerry, Gore, Dean, Carter, Nader, Perot or LaRouche would be. It is why being President is a hard job, you're responsible for an important thing every once and again. The Buck Stops Here type of thing. From a professional perspective, it is why you have checks and balances and procedures for those below you. Because it's your ass when things go wrong. And his administration's distaste for 'due process' is starting to bite them from all over. I know, i know, Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill are dyed-in-the-wool self-promoting liberals seeking fortune and fame in the Kerry administration, but the theme that has been emerging for a while from people who have seen the innards of that administration -- that theme of 'received wisdon' -- does not appear to be unrelated to prison abuse at all. Received Wisdom vs. Due Process folks. Leaving Kerry out of it for a second, that, to me, is what November is all about. It seems that the notion that nuance, being thorough, having some protocol and respecting authentic checks and balances is lost on these guys in economic, military, medical, environmental policies. You name it. I think that the administrations of Reagan, Bush I, whoever else you want to put on Mt. Rushmore would not have stood for this. Like the very basic, systemic safeguards in any organization are a nuisance, a thing of the past, and a hinderance to The War. And if you bring it up, you get called names : Liberal, pacifist, p****, whatever. Sure, due process and checks and balances are a nuisance. But sorry, in a country ostensibly built so people of differing values can co-exist -- those things might be the single most important mechanism in our society. There was so much debate here about prison abuse, intel, etc -- dude, greenlighting torture is bad enough. But i would say letting randoms in the military u-n-i-l-a-t-e-r-a-l-l-y decide who is going to be tortured -- and not noticing them documenting it and sending over email -- is even more damning. It's closer to the edge than nefarious policies -- it's unchecked chaos. So yeah, he did not abuse the prisoners. But s*** rolls downhill, and if it was Gore, Clinton, you name it, it should be cause for major internal review instead of prideful defensiveness. Scutting the 'responsibility' to that sociopathic nineteen year old skank and her buddies -- who we apparently felt were worthy free reign in an Iraqi prison -- is not a help. Debate the merits or torture vs. saving lives all you want. It just appears to me that no system is in place to keep anything in check internally. And we all reap what we all sow. I mean, lets face it: Gore and Kerry and company are cures for insomnia. But cripes, at least these walking trees indicate that they some vague respect for the fact that it is our systems, rather than our divine provenance, that make America worth dying for. And McCain. Some other conservatives and liberals. It's not a party thing, that's not how lines are really drawn here. It's why McCain, even Dean, are such a polarizing guys -- they seem to be new-school to me. Its not about democrat or republican, pro choice or pro life, liberal or conservative, for-the-war or against-the-war -- its about how to make America a stronger decision-making machine. Due process or received wisdom. I don't really know where Kerry will fall on that continuum. But I know damn sure where Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rove, etc. are on that continuum.
I'm not a Gore fan, but I have to admit that this line from his speech is something that has really been haunting me for well over a year now: <i>"How did we get from September 12th , 2001, when a leading French newspaper ran a giant headline with the words "We Are All Americans Now" and when we had the good will and empathy of all the world -- to the horror that we all felt in witnessing the pictures of torture in Abu Ghraib?"</i> I feel sick in the pit of my stomach when I remember the moment when it felt like 90 percent of the world stood side-by-side in one long moment of humanity. It was like the old scenes from wars when both sides called 24-hour cease fires for Christmas and you could hear carols sung across the battlefield. It was like, for that instant in time, we remembered our humainty not our inhumanity, our sameness, not our difference. When I think of that, I feel sick because it seems like it wasn't real. And, IMO, it doesn't matter who is to blame - Bush, Clinton, Muslims, Christians, whatever. All that matters is that we stood at a crucial moment in time - a moment that transcended war and difference and anger and pain - and didn't have the good sense to see it, hold onto it and make the world a better place for it. It's a shame.
Agree wholeheartedly with everything but that. If there's a cause, and you want to change, you need to address what the cause is.
I remember that moment, for me i felt it when Bush gave his first real address after 9/11 -- 'bring our enemies to justice and bring justice to our enemies' / 'those who kill in Allah's name are blaspheming Allah' speech. I thought that was his shining moment, I liked his speech and had more faith in him after that than any other time. My wife and I talked about it, that feeling of being at a precipice, and we could go one way or another. And it felt like a profoundly soulful historical moment. POOF!
I call BS. You just included Clinton covertly to soften your stance and hopefully give a semblance of credibility. Not gonna happen. My bet is that you would have easily said that there was something creepy about Bill Clinton if he were running against your idol, GWB, in this election. But heh.....it is okay - you have done nothing wrong. Personally, Kerry is not heart warming. He is not a great choice, Albert Gore is intelligent but a stiff as well. Bush as for GWB, I consider it an insult that someone with highly questionable intelligence can be leader of the greatest nation on earth (the only fair thing about him is that he is an alleged born again Christian). This madness must stop this year regardless of the not-so-heart-warming alternative.
